Did the Buddha Break Away from Hinduism?

Orientalists have started treating Buddhism as a separate religion because they discovered it outside India, without any conspicuous link with India, where Buddhism was not in evidence. At first, they didn’t even know that the Buddha had been an Indian. It had at any rate gone through centuries of development unrelated to anything happening in India at the same time. Therefore, it is understandable that Buddhism was already the object of a separate discipline even before any connection with Hinduism could be made.

Buddhism In Modern India
In India, all kinds of invention, somewhat logically connected to this status of separate religion, were then added. Especially the Ambedkarite movement, springing from the conversion of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in 1956, was very driven in retro-actively producing an anti-Hindu programme for the Buddha.

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar

Conversion itself, not just the embracing of a new tradition (which any Hindu is free to do, all while staying a Hindu) but the renouncing of one’s previous religion, as the Hindu-born politician Ambedkar did, is a typically Christian concept.

The model event was the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis, possibly in 496, who “burned what he had worshipped and worshipped what he had burnt.” (Let it pass for now that the Christian chroniclers slandered their victims by positing a false symmetry: the Heathens hadn’t been in the business of destroying Christian symbols.) So, in his understanding of the history of Bauddha Dharma (Buddhism), Ambedkar was less than reliable, in spite of his sterling contributions regarding the history of Islam and some parts of the history of caste.

But where he was a bit right and a bit mistaken, his later followers have gone all the way and made nothing but a gross caricature of history, and especially about the place of Buddhism in Hindu history.

The Ambedkarite worldview has ultimately only radicalized the moderately anti-Hindu version of the reigning Nehruvians. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, Buddhism was turned into the unofficial state religion of India, adopting the “lion pillar” of the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka as state symbol and putting the 24-spoked Cakravarti wheel in the national flag.

Essentially, Nehru’s knowledge of Indian history was limited to two spiritual figures, viz. the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, and three political leaders: Ashoka, Akbar and himself. The concept of Cakravarti (“wheel-turner,” universal ruler) was in fact much older than Ashoka, and the 24-spoked wheel can also be read in other senses, e.g. the Sankhya philosophy’s worldview, with the central Purusha/Subject and the 24 elements of Prakrti/Nature.

The anglicized Nehru, “India’s last Viceroy,” prided himself on his illiteracy in Hindu culture, so he didn’t know any of this, but was satisfied that these symbols could glorify Ashoka and belittle Hinduism, deemed a separate religion from which Ashoka had broken away by accepting Buddhism. More broadly, Nehru thought that everything of value in India was a gift of Buddhism (and Islam) to the undeserving Hindus. Thus, the fabled Hindu tolerance was according to him a value borrowed from Buddhism.

In reality, the Buddha had been a beneficiary of an already established Hindu tradition of pluralism. In a Muslim country, he would never have preached his doctrine in peace and comfort for 45 years, but in Hindu society, this was a matter of course. There were some attempts on his life, but they emanated not from “Hindus” but from jealous disciples within his own monastic order.

So, both Nehru and Ambedkar, as well as their followers, believed by implication that at some point in his life, the Hindu-born renunciate Buddha had broken away from Hinduism and adopted a new religion, Buddhism. This notion is now omnipresent, and through school textbooks, most Indians have lapped this up and don’t know any better.

However, numerous though they are, none of the believers in this story have ever told us at what moment in his life the Buddha broke away from Hinduism. When did he revolt against it? Very many Indians repeat the Nehruvian account, but so far, never has any of them been able to pinpoint an event in the Buddha’s life which constituted a break with Hinduism.

The Term “Hinduism”
Their first line of defence, when put on the spot, is sure to be:“Actually, Hinduism did not yet exist at the time.”So, their position really is:Hinduism did not exist yet, but somehow the Buddha broke away from it.Yeah, the secular position is that he was a miracle-worker.

Darius relief from the northern stairs of the Apadana of Persepolis (Archaeological museum, Tehran)

Let us correct that: the word “Hinduism” did not exist yet. When Darius of the Achaemenid Persians, a near-contemporary of the Buddha, used the word “Hindu,” it was purely in a geographical sense: anyone from inside or beyond the Indus region.

When the medieval Muslim invaders brought the term into India, they used it to mean: any Indian except for the Indian Muslims, Christians or Jews. It did not have a specific doctrinal content except “non-Abrahamic,” a negative definition. It meant every Indian Pagan, including the Brahmins, Buddhists (“clean-shaven Brahmins”), Jains, other ascetics, low-castes, intermediate castes, tribals, and by implication also the as yet unborn Lingayats, Sikhs, Hare Krishnas, Arya Samajis, Ramakrishnaites, secularists, and others who nowadays reject the label “Hindu.”

This definition was essentially also adopted by V.D. Savarkar in his book Hindutva (1923), and by the Hindu Marriage Act (1955). By this historical definition, which also has the advantages of primacy and of not being thought up by the wily Brahmins, the Buddha and all his Indian followers are unquestionably Hindus. In that sense, Savarkar was right when he called Ambedkar’s taking refuge in Buddhism “a sure jump into the Hindu fold.”

But the word “Hindu” is a favourite object of manipulation. Thus, secularists say that all kinds of groups (Dravidians, low-castes, Sikhs, etc.) are “not Hindu,” yet when Hindus complain of the self-righteousness and aggression of the minorities, secularists laugh at this concern: “How can the Hindus feel threatened? They are more than 80%!”

The missionaries call the tribals “not Hindus,” but when the tribals riot against the Christians who have murdered their Swami, we read about “Hindu rioters.” In the Buddha’s case, “Hindu” is often narrowed down to “Vedic” when convenient, then restored to its wider meaning when expedient.

One meaning which the word “Hindu” definitely does not have, and did not have when it was introduced, is “Vedic.” Shankara holds it against Patanjali and the Sankhya school (just like the Buddha did) that they don’t bother to cite the Vedas, yet they have a place in every history of Hindu thought.

Hinduism includes a lot of elements which have only a thin Vedic veneer, and numerous ones which are not Vedic at all. Scholars say that it consists of a “Great Tradition” and many “Little Traditions,” local cults allowed to subsist under the aegis of the prestigious Vedic line. However, if we want to classify the Buddha in these terms, he should rather be included in the Great Tradition.

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha was a Kshatriya, a scion of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty, a descendant of Manu, a self-described reincarnation of Rama, the son of the Raja of the Shakya tribe, a member of its Senate, and belonging to the Gautama gotra (roughly “clan”).

Though monks are often known by their monastic name, Buddhists prefer to name the Buddha after his descent group, viz. the Shakyamuni, “renunciate of the Shakya tribe.” This tribe was as Hindu as could be, consisting according to its own belief of the progeny of the eldest children of patriarch Manu, who were repudiated at the insistence of his later, younger wife.

The Buddha is not known to have rejected this name, not even at the end of his life when the Shakyas had earned the wrath of king Vidudabha of Kosala and were massacred. The doctrine that he was one in a line of incarnations which also included Rama is not a deceitful Brahmin Puranic invention but was launched by the Buddha himself, who claimed Rama as an earlier incarnation of his. The numerous scholars who like to explain every Hindu idea or custom as “borrowed from Buddhism” could well counter Ambedkar’s rejection of this “Hindu” doctrine by pointing out very aptly that it was “borrowed from Buddhism.”

Career
At 29, he renounced society, but not Hinduism. Indeed, it is a typical thing among Hindus to exit from society, laying off caste marks including civil name.

The Rg-Veda already describes the Muni-s as having matted hair and going about sky-clad: such are what we now know as Naga Sadhus. Asceticism was a recognized practice in Vedic society long before the Buddha. Yajnavalkya, the Upanishadic originator of the notion of Self, renounced life in society after a successful career as court priest and an equally happy family life with two wives.

By leaving his family and renouncing his future in politics, the Buddha followed an existing tradition within Hindu society. He didn’t practice Vedic rituals anymore, which is normal for a Vedic renunciate (though Zen Buddhists still recite the Heart Sutra in the Vedic fashion, ending with“sowaka,”i.e., svaha).

He was a late follower of a movement very much in evidence in the Upanishads, viz. of spurning rituals (Karmakanda) in favour of knowledge (Jnanakanda). After he had done the Hindu thing by going to the forest, he tried several methods, including the techniques he learned from two masters and which did not fully satisfy him−but nonetheless enough to include them in his own and the Buddhist curriculum.

The Buddha in a preaching pose flanked by bodhisattvas, Cave 4 Ajanta.

Among other techniques, he practised Anapanasati,“attention to the breathing process,” the archetypal yoga practice popular in practically all yoga schools even today. For a while he also practised an extreme form of asceticism, still existing in the Hindu sect of Jainism. He exercised his Hindu freedom to join a sect devoted to certain techniques, and later the freedom to leave it, remaining a Hindu at every stage.

He then added a technique of his own, or at least that is what the Buddhist sources tell us, for in the paucity of reliable information, we don’t know for sure that he hadn’t learned the Vipassana (“mindfulness”) technique elsewhere.

Unless evidence of the contrary comes to the surface, we assume that he invented this technique all by himself, as a Hindu is free to do. He then achieved Bodhi, the “Awakening.” By his own admission, he was by no means the first to do so. Instead, he had only walked the same path of other Awakened beings before him.

At the bidding of the Vedic gods Brahma and Indra, he left his self-contained state of Awakening and started teaching his way to others. When he “set in motion the wheel of the Law” (Dharma-cakra-pravartana, Chinese Falungong), he gave no indication whatsoever of breaking with an existing system.

On the contrary, by his use of existing Vedic and Upanishadic terminology (Arya, “Vedically civilized”;Dharma), he confirmed his Vedic roots and implied that his system was a restoration of the Vedic ideal that had become degenerate. He taught his techniques and his analysis of the human condition to his disciples, promising them to achieve the same Awakening if they practiced these diligently.

Caste
On caste, we find him in full cooperation with existing caste society. Being an elitist, he mainly recruited among the upper castes, with over 40% Brahmins. These would later furnish all the great philosophers who made Buddhism synonymous with conceptual sophistication.

Conversely, the Buddhist universities trained well-known non-Buddhist scientists such as the astronomer Aryabhata. Lest the impression be created that universities are a gift of Buddhism to India, it may be pointed out that the Buddha’s friends Bandhula and Prasenadi (and, according to a speculation, maybe the young Siddhartha himself) had studied at the university of Takshashila, clearly established before there were any Buddhists were around to do so. Instead, the Buddhists greatly developed an institution which they had inherited from Hindu society.

Takshashila

The kings and magnates of the eastern Ganga plain treated the Buddha as one of their own (because that is what he was) and gladly patronized his fast-growing monastic order, commanding their servants and subjects to build a network of monasteries for it. He predicted the coming of a future Awakened leader like himself, the Maitreya (“the one practising friendship/charity”), and specified that he would be born in a Brahmin family.

When king Prasenadi discovered that his wife was not a Shakya princess but the daughter of the Shakya ruler by a maid-servant, he repudiated her and their son; but his friend the Buddha made him take them back.

Did he achieve this by saying that birth is unimportant, that “caste is bad” or that “caste doesn’t matter,” as the Ambedkarites claim? No, he reminded the king of the old view (then apparently in the process of being replaced with a stricter view) that caste was passed on exclusively in the paternal line.

Among hybrids of horses and donkeys, the progeny of a horse stallion and a donkey mare whinnies, like its father, while the progeny of a donkey stallion and a horse mare brays, also like its father. So, in the oldest Upanishad, Satyakama Jabala is accepted by his Brahmins-only teacher because his father is deduced to be a Brahmin, regardless of his mother being a maid-servant. And similarly, king Prasenadi should accept his son as a Kshatriya, even though his mother was not a full-blooded Shakya Kshatriya.

When he died, the elites of eight cities made a successful bid for his ashes on the plea: “We are Kshatriyas, he was a Kshatriya, therefore we have a right to his ashes”. After almost half a century, his disciples didn’t mind being seen in public as still observing caste in a context which was par excellence Buddhist.

The reason is that the Buddha in his many teachings never had told them to give up caste, e.g. to give their daughters in marriage to men of other castes. This was perfectly logical: as a man with a spiritual message, the Buddha wanted to lose as little time as possible on social matters. If satisfying your own miserable desires is difficult enough, satisfying the desire for an egalitarian society provides an endless distraction from your spiritual practice.

The Seven RulesThere never was a separate non-Hindu Buddhist society.

Most Hindus worship various gods and teachers, adding and sometimes removing one or more pictures or statues to their house altar. This way, there were some lay worshippers of the Buddha, but they were not a society separate from the worshippers of other gods or Awakened masters. This box-type division of society in different sects is another Christian prejudice infused into modern Hindu society by Nehruvian secularism. There were only Hindus, members of Hindu castes, some of whom had a veneration for the Buddha among others.

When Buddhism spread to China and Japan, Buddhist monks took the Vedic gods (e.g. the twelve Adityas) with them and built temples for them. In Japan, every town has a temple for the river-goddess Benzaiten, i.e. “Saraswati Devi,” the goddess Saraswati. She was not introduced there by wily Brahmins, but by Buddhists.

At the fag end of his long life, the Buddha described the seven principles by which a society does not perish (which Sita Ram Goel has given more body in his historical novel Saptasheel, in Hindi), and among them are included: respecting and maintaining the existing festivals, pilgrimages and rituals; and revering the holy men.

These festivals etc. were mainly “Vedic,” of course, like the pilgrimage to the Saraswati River that Balarama made in the Mahabharata, or the pilgrimage to the Ganga which the elderly Pandava brothers made. Far from being a revolutionary, the Buddha emphatically outed himself as a conservative, both in social and religious matters. He was not a rebel or a revolutionary, but wanted the existing customs to continue.

teachings never had told them to give up caste, e.g. to give their daughters in marriage to men of other castes
--
And neither did Mahavir Jain or the Gurus, however the varan being through father is true in anulom but jaati is not.

I.e son of servant mother & ksytria father would still be different than ksytria mother but would still be a legitimate son.
--
Only people against jaati are those who want to prey on the women of Aryavarta.

Hinduism is Way of life/Culture of Indian subcontinent.So if you take that into consideration then Paki+BD+Indian muzzies also Hindus!.If you say to them 'they are Hindus' they start Bombing everything.

Anyway Buddha never claimed he is God/Prophet/God's son.He simply said he is a monk and follow your OWN WAY/middle path.

The problem is ABRAHAMIC 'ONE GOD',Fk that bloody One God.There is no fk God.Period.

Why that fk 'One God' is dangerous.If you believe there is fk One God then he is only TRUE and other God's are fake and they Kafir/Sinner.So Chrislamists both are dangerous one is smart and other is hard terrorist because of that One God.

I think budhism, Sikhism, jainism etc has orginated from larger hindu traditions but evelolved into different religions with distinct identity, just like islam and christanity orginated from the jewish traditions.
NB: do not quote me if you are incapable of indulging in meaningful and rational discussion in civil language.

I think budhism, Sikhism, jainism etc has orginated from larger hindu traditions but evelolved into different religions with distinct identity, just like islam and christanity orginated from the jewish traditions.
NB: do not quote me if you are incapable of indulging in meaningful and rational discussion in civil language.

Click to expand...

Nice try but bull shit nevertheless. There are irreconcilable differences between Jews, Xtianity, and Islam, while nothing like that exists in Buddhist/Jains/Sikhs with Hindus. There is no central tenet or one true path in Hinduism. That's not the case with the abrahmics for whom its all my way or high way.

A Buddhist by practice and faith born in a Hindu family would be called a Hindu and not a Buddhist. For instance, I would still be a Hindu , if I reject castes, reject gods, reject meat, reject violence etc (all of which are central principles of Buddhism) . I would be a Hindu if I believe in guru Nanak teachings and sport a beard ..after all, Sikhism started as a resistance movement against the barbaric filth in north India, where first born sons of Hindu families joined the fight after taking sword from their gurus. If tomorrow, Ramakrishna mission claims to be a different religion from Hinduism, then also their arguments would be similar to that laid by the Sikhs who refuse to acknowledge that they are a sect within the bigger tree called Hinduism

Unlike that, a muslim who worships Jesus is no longer a Muslim and would be killed by their peaceful moderate Practitioners nor is a Xtian worshipping Allah a Muslim

Dasratha Jataka where the Tathagata Buddha claims he was formerly Rama and narrates the Ramayana as his former birth. Yashodhara, his wife, appears in the Jataka as Sita. Maharaja Shuddodhana, father of Tathagata, appears as Raja Dasratha. Ananda as Bharata. Lakshmana is also mentioned. The story happens in Benares as opposed to Ayodhya as opposed to the Hindu/Jain/Sikh retelling of the legend. . Unfortunately Hanuman and Ravana dont find mention in it as the Buddhists probably wanted to eschew violent details. We can see similarities here with Jaina Ramayana where Rama becomes a Jaina Monk and gives up violence.

Wat Phra Keo, the most important Buddhist temple in Thailand has scenes from the Thai Ramayana, the Ramakien. The former capital of Thailand was named Ayyuthya, after Rama’s home town. All kings of the present ruling dynasty of Thailand take the throne name Rama.

Dasratha Jataka where the Tathagata Buddha claims he was formerly Rama and narrates the Ramayana as his former birth. Yashodhara, his wife, appears in the Jataka as Sita. Maharaja Shuddodhana, father of Tathagata, appears as Raja Dasratha. Ananda as Bharata. Lakshmana is also mentioned. The story happens in Benares as opposed to Ayodhya as opposed to the Hindu/Jain/Sikh retelling of the legend.

Wat Phra Keo, the most important Buddhist temple in Thailand has scenes from the Thai Ramayana, the Ramakien. The former capital of Thailand was named Ayyuthya, after Rama’s home town. All kings of the present ruling dynasty of Thailand take the throne name Rama.

Click to expand...

Dude you are fucking awesome. I know about ayuthaya but never really knew or made out the connection between ayuthayya and ayodhya.thanks for the links

Man, if only the RSS chaddis and BJP clowns promote these to our kids in their schools, instead of teaching them flying ancient planes and nukes

BTW, do you know that some of the greatest kings of Thailand(Siam) like Ramkanghang are all named after our Hindu gods and icons ! The whole of south east india, which is Buddhist and somehow they have captured our Hindu traditions in atone even though Buddhism is apparently anti Hindu .

Out of this list, we can identify 5 of the Lokapalas (Chandra, Surya, Agni, Varuna, Indra) if Arjuna is counted as an incarnate of Indra. So we can see that there is some semblance with the Hindu Puranic account of Krishna where he is seen as the last and best of the 8 Devtas. We also have 2 heroes with whom Krishna is often seen making a pair in Hindu legends : Balarama and Arjuna. Four of the 5 heroes of Vrishnis/Yadavas are also in this list : Vasudeva, Balarama, Pradyumana and Akrura.

Nandagopa is Nand Baba, the foster father of Krishna (Gopa signifies that he was a cowherd/yadava). Kamsa appears as the evil king of Mathura. Rishi Ved Vyasa or Krishna Dwaipayana (Krishna = Black, Dwaipayana = Island born. The Dark child born on an Island to Satyawati and Rishi Parashara) appears as the Sage Kaṇha-Dipayana.

Unlike Mahabharat where Gandhari curses the Yadava clan, here all the sons eventually get killed due to a curse of Sage Kanha Dipayana. And similar to the depiction in Mahabharata, Krishna himself is eventually speared by Jara the hunter in the foot by mistake, leaving the sole survivor of their family being their sister, Anjana.

Sariputra, a chief disciple of Buddha, was Vasudeva in Ghata Pandita & Lakshamana in Dasratha Jataka, and coincidentally he was also awarded the title of Dhamma-senapati, chief general of dharma & right hand man of Buddha. Much like his role in those 2 Jatakas.

Dude you are fucking awesome. I know about ayuthaya but never really knew or made out the connection between ayuthayya and ayodhya.thanks for the links

Man, if only the RSS chaddis and BJP clowns promote these to our kids in their schools, instead of teaching them flying ancient planes and nukes

BTW, do you know that some of the greatest kings of Thailand(Siam) like Ramkanghang are all named after our Hindu gods and icons ! The whole of south east india, which is Buddhist and somehow they have captured our Hindu traditions in atone even though Buddhism is apparently anti Hindu .

Click to expand...

This one time a Thai lady showed me her Kalava (Rakshasutra) and told me Thai's worship the elephant god (Phra Pikanet). I did some googling and it turned out to be true.

It's sad that BJP/RSS has not done anything to take advantage of this cultural influence. They are stuck with the Communal-Sickular dialectic. Even Congress government had turned away a Thai delegation that needed some help reviving Sanskrit and Pali on that account that it'll perceived as "communal".

Not only Buddhism, but Shinto and Tao faiths have also absorbed Hindu deities and beliefs. Buddhism as an anti-thesis to Hinduism is more a result of a certain late 19th century orientalist European approach, than a reality of interpretations from actual texts and practice in eastern lands. This was probably done out of two needs - to paint India as non-Hindu prior to Abrahamic invasions, and the desire to extract some support for a pseudo-Christian prior trend in India, implying that Buddhism may have picked up salient points of the Judeo-Christian tradition and thus creating a case for proselytization (cultural digestion theory). Hence, also the emphasizing those points that seemed different from the greater Vedic tradition and similar to Abrahamic traditions. There was also an attempt by Christian missionaries to claim Thirukkural as a Biblical work :-

Nice try but bull shit nevertheless. There are irreconcilable differences between Jews, Xtianity, and Islam, while nothing like that exists in Buddhist/Jains/Sikhs with Hindus. There is no central tenet or one true path in Hinduism. That's not the case with the abrahmics for whom its all my way or high way.

Click to expand...

i did not say abrahamic religions and hinduism is same..as you yourself have stated " abrahamic ", means originating from same culture and religious beliefs of early jewish society jewism, christanity and islam is as similar as budhism is similar to hinduism. It all orginated from jewish beliefs but grown into separate religions.

A Buddhist by practice and faith born in a Hindu family would be called a Hindu and not a Buddhist. For instance, I would still be a Hindu , if I reject castes, reject gods, reject meat, reject violence etc (all of which are central principles of Buddhism) . I would be a Hindu if I believe in guru Nanak teachings and sport a beard ..after all, Sikhism started as a resistance movement against the barbaric filth in north India, where first born sons of Hindu families joined the fight after taking sword from their gurus. If tomorrow, Ramakrishna mission claims to be a different religion from Hinduism, then also their arguments would be similar to that laid by the Sikhs who refuse to acknowledge that they are a sect within the bigger tree called Hinduism

Unlike that, a muslim who worships Jesus is no longer a Muslim and would be killed by their peaceful moderate Practitioners nor is a Xtian worshipping Allah a Muslim

Click to expand...

Anybody practicing budhism will be called a budhist not a hindu, those who practice sikhism is called Sikhs not hindus..yes you and some others argue and call them hindus but that's what we are debating it...isn't it ? so what you and the likes of you call them can't be shown as an evidance to against the argument that " you are wrong, they have developed enough distinction to be considered as a different religion from Hinduism and they shall be called budhist or sikhs based on their respective religios beliefs.

Even jesus was a jew, he also studied in synagogue, and practiced and followed the jewish religios rituals and laws, he never completely rejected old testament, old practices, old prophets...he just reformed it. Old jewish society was expecting a messiah, christians say jesus is the son of god and messiah, but jews and muslims consider him as a prophet.

i did not say abrahamic religions and hinduism is same..as you yourself have stated " abrahamic ", means originating from same culture and religious beliefs of early jewish society jewism, christanity and islam is as similar as budhism is similar to hinduism. It all orginated from jewish beliefs but grown into separate religions.

A Buddhist by practice and faith born in a Hindu family would be called a Hindu and not a Buddhist. For instance, I would still be a Hindu , if I reject castes, reject gods, reject meat, reject violence etc (all of which are central principles of Buddhism) . I would be a Hindu if I believe in guru Nanak teachings and sport a beard ..after all, Sikhism started as a resistance movement against the barbaric filth in north India, where first born sons of Hindu families joined the fight after taking sword from their gurus. If tomorrow, Ramakrishna mission claims to be a different religion from Hinduism, then also their arguments would be similar to that laid by the Sikhs who refuse to acknowledge that they are a sect within the bigger tree called Hinduism

Unlike that, a muslim who worships Jesus is no longer a Muslim and would be killed by their peaceful moderate Practitioners nor is a Xtian worshipping Allah a Muslim
Even jesus was a jew, he also studied in synagogue, and practiced and followed the jewish religios rituals and laws, he never completely rejected old testament, old practices, old prophets...he just reformed it. Old jewish society was expecting a messiah, christians say jesus is the son of god and messiah, but jews and muslims consider him as a prophet.

Click to expand...

Jews view Jesus as an imposter and a charltan. You really need some lessons in comparative religions before you engage in doing false equal-equal.

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of Jewish Messiah claimants who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[2] However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism.

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of Jewish Messiah claimants who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[2] However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism.

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of Jewish Messiah claimants who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[2] However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism.

Btw, if Jews had really took him so well they would not have killed him. That itself should give you more than enough clue about how Jews look/looked at Jesus.

Buddha on the other hand was accommodated as one of the Gods or reincarnation by Hindus.

Click to expand...

fine, i stand corrected on jewish view on jesus.they did not accept him as a true meaaiah.but my larger point still stands...that jesus was a jew, he learned and practiced and followed jewish laws and traditions, he claimed to be the messiah promised and expected by jews...so everything about christanity is orginated from jewish beliefs and books..much like budha jesus also reformed the old jewish laws, claimed to be prophet jews were expecting. its a different matter he got rejected by a majority section of jews but a minority accepted him and they later grown into christanity as we know today.

fine, i stand corrected on jewish view on jesus.they did not accept him as a true meaaiah.but my larger point still stands...that jesus was a jew, he learned and practiced and followed jewish laws and traditions, he claimed to be the messiah promised and expected by jews...so everything about christanity is orginated from jewish beliefs and books..much like budha jesus also reformed the old jewish laws, claimed to be prophet jews were expecting. its a different matter he got rejected by a majority section of jews but a minority accepted him and they later grown into christanity as we know today.

Click to expand...

So what?

Hindus don't hate Buddha nor Buddhism. While Jews hate Jesus and Chrisitianity. A hindu can be buddhist and other way around without much problem. Try to do it in case of Abhramic religions.

@Mad Indian I'd not say that Buddhism rejects Vedic Gods. Buddhist cosmology actually acknowledges the existence of Devaloka. Infact, Indra and Brahma, two early Vedic deities ended up with a larger role in Buddhism than in popular Hinduism where Vishnu, Shiva, Durga have eclipsed older Vedic deities. After Buddha's enlightenment, he was implored by Brahma and Indra to speak Dharma for the benefit of all, and then Buddha spoke the 4 Noble Truths sutra. Both Buddhism and Jainism adopted the Vedic cosmology but elevated Buddha and Mahavira over the Devas. Devas are seen more as guardian or protector deities in these 2 traditions.

Likewise, I'm not fully convinced that Buddha rejected the Vedic concept of a Supreme God. It seems that Buddha often compared the Nirvana (supreme goal or liberation in Buddhism) with the Vedic concept of attaining oneness with the Brahma or the supreme absolute / Brahman according to the Vedic texts as it is evident from the Buddhist texts. For e.g. Kandaraka Sutta, where the phrase 'self become Brahma' or 'Brahmabhutena Attana ' occurs a few times. Interestingly, the term Brahmabhuta also occurs in Bhagavad Gita 18.54 which clearly refers to the union with Absolute Brahma.

brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā

na śocati na kāṅkṣati

samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu

mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām

One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

Gita 18.54

Also in in Maha-sihanada Sutta, the Buddha equates the Dharmachakra, the famous wheel of Dharma with Brahmachakra, the wheel of Brahma.

Tevijja Sutta is another place where Buddha claims that he knows the way to attain union with Brahma and how to attain the Brahma world.

i did not say abrahamic religions and hinduism is same..as you yourself have stated " abrahamic ", means originating from same culture and religious beliefs of early jewish society jewism, christanity and islam is as similar as budhism is similar to hinduism. It all orginated from jewish beliefs but grown into separate religions.

Anybody practicing budhism will be called a budhist not a hindu, those who practice sikhism is called Sikhs not hindus..

Click to expand...

The constitution also classifies Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs under Hindu law. And guess what Dr Ambrdkar who became Buddhist defended this idea.